Metadata overview

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about being 'one compact snapshot' and cheaper than four calls, but does not disclose additional details such as response size limits or consistency guarantees. This is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the resource and its contents, and the second sentence provides the use context and cost benefit, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what data will be returned, when to use it, and why it is preferable to multiple sibling calls, so nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema places no burden on the description. The description still adds meaning by enumerating what the returned snapshot covers: tags, correspondents, document types, and storage paths with their IDs and counts.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource as a compact metadata overview aggregating tags, correspondents, document types, and storage paths, including IDs and document counts. It also differentiates this tool from the many sibling list tools by emphasizing it is one combined snapshot rather than four separate calls.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says this is the 'right first step before filing or triaging documents' and points out it is 'cheaper than four separate list calls,' making the intended context clear. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the comparison to separate list calls strongly implies the alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.